$11,000....WOW! I would expect image quality to be "stunning" even with the extender in place. I know it is just me...but I do not "get" a lens of this configuration at this cost factor. I guess it gives pros good versatility in certain situations....but at that cost with an extender switch..sounds like the lens could be open to some serious maintenance situations down the road. Not trying to be negative...just standing back and scratching my head, based on what I know about photography. It is interesting, to say the least.

actually, I know a lot of bird and sports shooters that would love to have this lens. it's pretty much the ultimate long lens in terms of flexibility, first between having the 200-400 zoom range, and then being able to throw in a 1.4x extender without having to unmount the camera, attach the extender, and then remount the camera.

yeah...it is not something I could ever afford to buy...but I am REALLY interested to see a review of the lens, as it is quite complicated, to see how it performs. ...I get the flexibility part...but $11 GRAND!!!! WOW!.

I debated this vs. the 500/4 II vs the 600/4 II. Since the 200-400 wasn't available (and technically, I suppose still is not available), I didn't consider it too strongly. But even so, the 600mm is more useful, to me.

With the 1D X (and soon 5DIII) having f/8 AF capability, this lens would be more interesting if it could take a 1.4xIII, but the design precludes that. Personally, I'd rather have 600mm at f/4 than 560mm at f/5.6.

I suspect that the use of the built in 1.4x will need no stopping down. I don't need to stop down my 300mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III combo. I use it at f/5.6 all day long:

When I used to have the 2x II, I would stop it down slightly to f/6.3:

As many have said on here though, I don't think this will be the ultimate birding lens. 560, is still on the short side. I often need my 800mm, which btw you can buy for less than the price of the 200-400mm.

I think this will be the lens of choice for those on Safari's where they are stuck in a jeep or something and need the flexibility of the zoom. Also for outdoor sports in daylight.

i also don't see any need to stop down my 300mm 2.8, but if you feel like you do, go right ahead. Did this lens have that tele lock in the earlier photos? i don't remember it, but i might have just missed it.

Like some of the others who have posted in this thread, I am interested in how this lens performs, even though I doubt I will purchase it (I can 'afford' it... but most likely will decide to put so much of my money into other things... and that being not necessarily into photography).

If the Canon 200-400mm IS USM 1.4x lens is as sharp as my 70-300mm L IS USM lens, and performs well with the 1.4x engaged (ie has great IQ and AF is still fast and accurate), I believe it would be very attractive for those that require the flexibility of a zoom up to 560mm.

Obviously I'd prefer a lens that has f/2.8 to 400mm or even f/4 all the way to 560mm. But having said that, the weight (and probably other related issues, ie incorporating IS in a lens of that size) might be prohibitive.

Most of my wildlife shots (including BIF) I manage to seem to get fairly close (it probably depends the bird / environment and my own 'being discreet' nature). So there have been times when I've done BIF photos of eg Australia's Wattle Bird (a small to mid sized bird), and I was too close at 300mm, and had to zoom out to about 200mm.

Obviously there are situations when one can never have enough mm (eg birds or other wildlife that won't let you get close, or moon shots, etc). For what it's worth, I feel like I really appreciate the flexibility of a zoom when out in the field, and the range of 200mm - 400mm @ f/4 and 280 - 560 @ f/5.6 is a great range, imho. (I don't do sports photography).

I really like the photo comparisons of various Canon tele lenses that KitsVancouver gave a link to (thanks). So while a large part of this post is also academic to me (and I do hope that it performs very well) - I'll keep my eyes peeled. Maybe when I get to retirement I will look at it with different eyes.... a great IS on such a lens is also very helpful!

Canon have come out with a high-spec lens in the 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x - and I think this is a good sign for the future... particularly if its a hit with pro's and enthusiasts. I'm looking forward to reviews, and more importantly seeing great photos from this lens. In the meantime I'm very happy with my very portable 70-300mm L, which in my Canon 7D, gives me a lot of very portable quality for a lot less price!

Paul

Logged

I appreciate using my Canon DSLRs along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

I debated this vs. the 500/4 II vs the 600/4 II. Since the 200-400 wasn't available (and technically, I suppose still is not available), I didn't consider it too strongly. But even so, the 600mm is more useful, to me.

With the 1D X (and soon 5DIII) having f/8 AF capability, this lens would be more interesting if it could take a 1.4xIII, but the design precludes that. Personally, I'd rather have 600mm at f/4 than 560mm at f/5.6.

But I'm interested to see how this lens performs, regardless...

Ideal situation 600 prime at f4 is better, AGREE. But for me the flexibility of this lens is very welcome. Provided of of course the IQ is close to the prime... When shooting wildlife in open plains even the 600 falls short many times. So the 200-400 and 800 seem ideal to me.

i also don't see any need to stop down my 300mm 2.8, but if you feel like you do, go right ahead. Did this lens have that tele lock in the earlier photos? i don't remember it, but i might have just missed it.

sproggit

I think this is where I get flamed out to Jupiter, or laughed out of sight...

I am trying to figure out what Canon's digital photography strategy actually is, who their market researchers (if they have any) actually bother talking to, and why they keep shooting themselves in the foot. (And I am sorry that I'm about to wander off topic a bit, but stay with me...)

Canon has recently launched 2 cameras which, for them, are absolute turkeys: the mirror less interchangeable lens EOSM, and the large-sensor G1X. Lots of R&D money wasted in being the last major brand to enter a markets sector, then doing so with a poor product. (Pause for flames).

Meanwhile, in the SLR space they introduce yet another variant camera, the 6D. This is really just a silly compromise - it is selling at the price the 5D should have been offered for, but with a stack of useful features held back. (Pause for more flames).

And in the lens space, they want to charge $11,000 for this? If it had been 5 or even 6 thousand, I could have conceded it made sense. If it was off-the-scale awesome, then 7500 with some steep cash back options.

But the fact remains that this is likely to sell in only small numbers because of that price tag. I cannot help but wonder if the fact that Canon's last annual profits came in at under a billion are down to a very poor product strategy. They are building products that people don't seem to want (G1X a great example), then when they find one that should have the potential to sell like hot cakes (this 200-400mm) they go and price it out of the market. The amateur who has pushed his or her budget to a 5DIII is hardly going to spend several multiples of the price of the camera on a single lens, no matter how good it is.

I've been a loyal Canon user for many years, and owned the 10D, 40D and now have a 7, but I just fail to see the point of this.

I think this is where I get flamed out to Jupiter, or laughed out of sight...

I am trying to figure out what Canon's digital photography strategy actually is, who their market researchers (if they have any) actually bother talking to, and why they keep shooting themselves in the foot. (And I am sorry that I'm about to wander off topic a bit, but stay with me...)

Canon has recently launched 2 cameras which, for them, are absolute turkeys: the mirror less interchangeable lens EOSM, and the large-sensor G1X. Lots of R&D money wasted in being the last major brand to enter a markets sector, then doing so with a poor product. (Pause for flames).

Meanwhile, in the SLR space they introduce yet another variant camera, the 6D. This is really just a silly compromise - it is selling at the price the 5D should have been offered for, but with a stack of useful features held back. (Pause for more flames).

And in the lens space, they want to charge $11,000 for this? If it had been 5 or even 6 thousand, I could have conceded it made sense. If it was off-the-scale awesome, then 7500 with some steep cash back options.

But the fact remains that this is likely to sell in only small numbers because of that price tag. I cannot help but wonder if the fact that Canon's last annual profits came in at under a billion are down to a very poor product strategy. They are building products that people don't seem to want (G1X a great example), then when they find one that should have the potential to sell like hot cakes (this 200-400mm) they go and price it out of the market. The amateur who has pushed his or her budget to a 5DIII is hardly going to spend several multiples of the price of the camera on a single lens, no matter how good it is.

I've been a loyal Canon user for many years, and owned the 10D, 40D and now have a 7, but I just fail to see the point of this.

Emperor Canon of the Camera Kingdom has no clothes on...

Naaaaa. This lens will be extremely popular I believe. Flames or not. Pausing for them or not. People who do not want to pay for this have the 100-400 at their disposal...